730
While you were worried about socialism… (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/15051084

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 15 hours ago (1 child)

Dude. You keep trying to deflect to save face from the fact that I called you out for incorrectly equating Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. That makes everything else you're saying a red herring. I'm not using logical fallacies incorrectly. It's a red herring, and you keep deflecting.

It's not a good look. It would be more honorable to just say "You know what, you're right, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are different things. I was wrong to try equating them." But no, you don't seem capable of admitting that.

So you go on multiple tirades where you spit out correct information that's irrelevant to the discussion, as if you can then flip it around and act like I'm arguing against that instead of pointing out why you were wrong originally. And I keep telling you "Stop deflecting, that's not what this argument is about." And you keep doing it.

It's like you said "ACDFGE" and I said "No, it's ABCDEFG." So then you respond with "But HIJKLMNO!" And I said "We're not talking about HIJKLMNO, we're talking about ABCDEFG."

So you go "I SAID 'HIJKLMNO'. Jay-zuss, you do not know what you're talking about. I can't believe you think HIJKLMNO is wrong."

And I keep bringing it back by saying "This conversation is not about HIJKLMNO, and I never said HIJKLMNO is not correct. I said stop deflecting, because you said 'ACDFGE' and I called you out on it and said that's wrong and you've been deflecting ever since."

So what you're doing is in fact also a motte-and-bailey. Nice job calling yourself out like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 child)

    Oh my God! You have to be stupid, right? You have to be. The whole point of the disclaimer and infographic I showed you was to demonstrate that social democracy and democratic socialism are different things.

    That is exactly what I’m saying. And a red herring isn’t a fish, you clearly have no idea what the term means. I have neither demonstrated nor used a red herring. Stop accusing me of using logical fallacies when you don’t even understand what they mean.

    Moreover, I have explicitly admitted that AOC is a democratic socialist, and that she can also accurately be described separately as a Democrat and as a socialist. Are you actually disagreeing with that, or are you going to call this a logical fallacy as well?

    And oh my god dude, you don't know what a Motte and Bailey is.

    A red herring is a logical fallacy where someone introduces an irrelevant topic or argument to distract from the original issue rather than addressing it directly.

    Example:

    Person A: "You didn't answer my question about why you lied."

    Person B: "Well, you lied to me last year!"

    Person B's response is a red herring because whether Person A lied previously doesn't answer the question of whether Person B lied now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm the one who's stupid? I just broke it down for you plain as day and you're still doing the exact same thing I called you out on.

    The whole point of the disclaimer and infographic I showed you was to demonstrate that social democracy and democratic socialism are different things.

    That was after I originally called you out on conflating them, which you only posted in response to being corrected, yet without admitting that you had been wrong in the first place. And by the way, the infographic itself was flawed, which I pointed out, and you refused to address.

    And a red herring isn’t a fish, you clearly have no idea what the term means.

    Actually it is a fish. It refers to a bloody herring that hunters used to use to train their hounds to ignore irrelevant scents that might distract them from their game trail.

    And I explained to you exactly how and why what you're doing is a red herring. Accusing me of not knowing what it means as logical fallacy isn't going to help you.

    I have neither demonstrated nor used a red herring.

    Yes you have.

    Stop accusing me of using logical fallacies when you don’t even understand what they mean.

    Clearly I understand them better than you do. And no, I won't stop calling you out on them as long as you keep using them. You're not very good at formulating rational arguments if your only response is "stop calling out my fallacies!"

    Moreover, I have explicitly admitted that AOC is a democratic socialist, and that she can also accurately be described separately as a Democrat and as a socialist. Are you actually disagreeing with that, or are you going to call this a logical fallacy as well?

    "HIJKLMNO!"

    No, I never disagreed with that. So now you're also making a strawman argument by accusing me of disagreeing with this correct yet irrelevant fact that you inserted into the conversation to try to deflect from your original error. So yes, it is a logical fallacy. It seems most of your arguments are.

    Your whole point from the beginning was smugly condescending people for referring to democratic socialists as socialists, and claiming they don't know what they're talking about. And to support your argument, you conflated democratic socialism with social democracy.

    In other words, YOU WERE WRONG FROM THE START, and attempting to change the topic of the argument is no way to save face.

    And oh my god dude, you don't know what a Motte and Bailey is.

    Yes I do, and it's what you're doing by attempting to change the topic of the discussion. You claimed democratic socialism and social democracy are the same things. Multiple people told you you're wrong. So then suddenly your argument changed to "AOC is a democratic socialist." And you started acting like anyone arguing with you must be disagreeing with that. That is a textbook motte-and-bailey.

    A red herring is a logical fallacy where someone introduces an irrelevant topic or argument to distract from the original issue rather than addressing it directly.

    That's exactly what you've been doing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 hours ago

    Okay... I did not conflate anything. I am not expressing any of the logical fallacies you have named. The entire purpose of the disclaimer and infographic was to expressly point out the differences.

    I have clarified this multiple times now. I am fully aware of the differences, nuances, and similarities between democratic socialism and social democracy. I can explain them to you if you'd like, but you're going to continue pretending that you understand what I'm saying.

    The point of the infographic and disclaimer is to show that the people being discussed are advocating for either social democracy or democratic socialism, not socialism as an economic system.

    It is your lack of reading comprehension that has led you to believe I have equated the two. I will admit that the wording of my original disclaimer was confusing toward the end, and I can understand how you may have interpreted it that way. I have since changed the disclaimer specifically to prevent that misunderstanding from happening again.

    And man... I was waiting for you to finally accuse me of a straw man fallacy. If I had a nickel every time someone on here misused that term, I'd be rich.

    I did not commit a straw man, a red herring, or any of the other fallacies you've accused me of. You consistently misuse these terms, and unfortunately, that is extremely common in online discourse among people who don't actually understand what these fallacies mean or how to identify them.

    Every time I have a conversation with someone who starts throwing around accusations of logical fallacies, the conversation inevitably degrades into arguing about the fallacies themselves instead of the actual subject. We are not engaged in a professional debate. I'm not going to convince you of everything, and you're not going to convince me of everything. I know exactly what I wrote and what I meant. You can be as pompous and overconfident as you want, but that doesn't change the meaning of what I said.

    I have now explicitly stated that I agree AOC is a socialist, that she is a Democrat, and that I understand the differences between the various political ideologies and economic systems being discussed.

    So, are you going to acknowledge that I've made those points and that I've conceded the things I've actually conceded, or are you going to continue arguing against something I never said?

    And don't start your response with something like, "This isn't going to work," "You don't understand," or "You're still doing the same thing." I have directly addressed your points without committing the fallacies you've accused me of. I've acknowledged the points where you were correct and conceded several things, all of which you seem to gloss over.

    At this point, my conclusion is that you either aren't reading what I'm writing or you're simply not capable of understanding it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent